jim said:
> I assure you Bowerbird, that contrary to your comments
> I did not “deliberately” disfigure the text file, and
> I would appreciate it if you retract your comments.
how come the .txt file is missing the italics which are
right there, big as day, in the .html version of the file?
did that happen accidentally?
did someone else cause them to disappear?
if i would have said that you did it "on purpose",
would that have made it better? i did say that
it was a rather "dramatic" subject-line, but still,
since you're the person who submitted the work,
i'm not sure how else we can explain the fact that
the .html file has italics, but the .txt file does not.
and you knew full well that the .txt version was
missing the italics information, because that was
the impetus that led you here to complain that
the .txt format was inferior. it was, in your case,
but _only_ because you deliberately made it so...
(or, if you prefer, tell me what word you want me
to use instead of "deliberately", if that's inaccurate.)
> In any case the “formatters” you refer to would be myself.
> An army of one.
so you threw away your own work. i guess that
that doesn't carry the same moral baggage that
throwing away the work of other people might...
still, the fact remains that some of the formatting
which you included in the .html version of the book
was _not_ included in the .txt version, so people who
use the .txt version have been deprived of some utility,
which does indeed carry some moral baggage, sadly...
so i don't think you can excuse the fact that you've
thrown away utility, just because you did the work of
providing that utility in the .html version of the book.
> Also, I do not ever rewrap books of my own volition but
> only as required in order to be accepted for submission
i didn't complain about your rewrapping of this book.
> If you are unhappy with HTML as an input submission
> format then I recommend writing a simple parser for HTML
> that changes the HTML choice of tags to the tags you prefer.
don't try to make this about _me_. or about the _.html_.
this thread started because _you_ came here to complain
about the _.txt_ format, claiming that it was substandard.
it's not. at least not unless it is deliberately sabotaged...
(or, if you prefer, tell me what word you want me
to use instead of "deliberately", if that's inaccurate.)
> If you wrote such a parser I suspect you could contribute
> it to PG where it would represent a positive contribution
> to the many volunteers like myself who would prefer to be
> submitting in HTML format in the first place.
well, it's easy enough to create a .txt file from an .html file
-- you simply copy the text out of the browser's window...
you'll need to do clean-up on it, since the browser doesn't
copy fully-formatted text to the clipboard in most cases...
however, you can minimize the work needed by using safari
-- which retains the text-styling info -- or internet explorer.
it also helps if you colorize blocks, since that will make it
easier to reintroduce the indentation lost on those blocks.
but really, you're doing it ass-backwards if you're trying to
get a .txt file out of an .html file. instead, you should be
formatting your .txt file as z.m.l., so you can auto-generate
an .html file out of the z.m.l. file -- much less work that way.
all the work you spend doing .html is just a waste of energy...
furthermore, everyone's .html is different, there's no way that
future maintainers of the p.g. library will be able to update it;
so they will scrap the .html and use the .txt files as their base.
you'd be ahead of the game if you adopted that approach now.
> In practice HTML encodes most of what I as a volunteer
> would choose to spend my time and energy transcribing
well, jim, in your "the wings of the dove" book, there was
very little to encode in the first place, so it hardly matters.
> but I wish it had a little more power, such as the ability to
> unambiguously encode authorfirstname, authorlastname,
> chapter divisions, etc.
well, i'm not gonna indulge any more o.c.d. on author-names.
but as far as "chapter divisions", that's easy to do in .html...
indeed, the default understanding of e-book .html markup
is that the title and chapter-headers are tagged with "h#"...
in z.m.l., the title is assumed to be the file's first paragraph.
headers below that are marked with 4 or more empty lines
preceding them, and 2 empty lines following them, so that
gives you an unambiguous outline of the book's structure...
indeed, in "the wings of the dove", there is a 2-level outline,
with "book" as the first level and "chapter" as the next level...
so you will notice that i indicated that by having 8 empty lines
above "book" headers, 5 empty lines above "chapter" headers.
> If you think you have something positive to contribute to PG,
> please do so.
well, jim, i _do_ think i have "something positive to contribute".
and i _am_ contributing it, right now... you're soaking in it...
i'm showing _you_ -- and anyone else who wants to read it --
how you could be making yourself much more efficient, _and_
how you could create more beautiful and powerful e-books too.
> Abusing me for my choice of which sacrifices I am willing
> to make, or not willing to make, does not represent a
> contribution to PG, nor does it encourage my continuing
> contributions to PG.
back off. i'm not "abusing" you at all. i'm pointing out how
the choices you've made have resulted in an inferior product.
surely you're not going to try and argue that the .txt file that
lacks its italics is an acceptable digitization, are you? really?
and surely you're not suggesting that i simply _ignore_ that?
are you? if you can't take the balmy breeze, get off the patio!
> The EPUB was not generated by me
and i don't hold you responsible for the .epub.
> it does point out the advantages of TEI which allows the
> encoding in one document the various “hints” necessary
> for attractive rendering of the one TEI input file into
> various output rendering language targets.
except that's _not_ a "benefit" of .tei in particular, jim.
it's a benefit of _any_ "master" format, including .zml.
> I also did not generate the MOBI
and i don't hold you responsible for the .mobi.
indeed, since mobipocket has never supported the mac,
i have absolutely no interest in that format, thank you...
> I use MOBI files all the time with my favorite reader machine.
good. i'm glad you like it.
my z.m.l. workflow calls for output to .html, which can then be
converted easily to .mobi, so i have that base covered well enough.
> by midnight my eyes get tired and then I tend to like
> a larger font and smaller margins. Which is why I like
> reflow formats and reader machines – they allow me to
> easily “fix” many of the day-to-day “poor choices” that
> some one else has made which would otherwise get in
> the way of MY being able to enjoy the book the way *I* want.
yes, that's the good things about reflowable formats,
which is why we like reflowable formats best of all...
> My machine also works well with PDF files except I can’t
> fix issues like when the person or process generating the PDF
> uses a “poor” choice of font, or poor choice of margins
that's the problem with a nonreflowable format like .pdf...
of course, if you have the _master_ file, such as a .zml file,
and you can customize the .pdf to your _own_ preferences,
then the .pdf you generate will be _exactly_ to your liking...
(of course, that won't help your time-of-day considerations.)
> I can sometimes work around these problems by
> holding my machine in landscape mode, and
> displaying only half a page of PDF at a time, but
> it tends to be awkward and painful to hold the machine
> sideways for a length of time, and PDF often doesn’t
> like to be read a half a page at a time – since it is
> a page layout language, not a half page layout language.
i can't do much for the uncomfortable sideways position...
but i can tell you that, if you're generating the .pdf yourself,
from a .zml master, then you could make the pagesize _fit_
the landscape display, so you were reading _full_ pages on it,
and not _half_ pages. just another benefit of customized .pdf.
> Which is why I tend to prefer reflow formats like MOBI or HTML
right.
> However, at the very least the acidity of Bowerbirds remarks
oh please jim. does everyone coddle your precious identity?
aren't you used to anyone being frank with you in the slightest?
i haven't called you any names, or cast any aspersions on you...
even my claim that you had "deliberately sabotaged" the .txt file
was something that i myself said was "dramatic", even if accurate,
and it was a description of your _behavior_, not your _personality_.
> reaffirms my contention that PG needs to allow volunteers like
> myself to submit files in the volunteer’s choice of file formats,
> NOT Bowerbirds.
i'm not trying to tell p.g. what to do. and neither should you, jim...
> In which case I could have offered PG my efforts in one file format,
> and PG could have chosen to accept or reject that offering.
you can do that now. they will choose not to accept it. live with it.
> If PG chose to accept that offering then hopefully neither Bowerbird
> nor any other volunteer would abuse me of my efforts
> which PG has then already acknowledged.
look, if you omit the italics from a book, i'm gonna call you on it...
(and if you choose to see that as "abuse", then that's your problem.)
i don't give a flying burrito if p.g. has "acknowledged" your work
or not; if you left out the italics from the book, i'll call you on it...
> Rather, that volunteer would (hopefully) acknowledge that PG
> had already accepted my contribution, and in turn if they felt
> they could make further positive contributions to this book,
> or any other book, in that file format or in any other file format,
> then they would be free to do so.
you're registered over at distributed proofreaders, jim, so why
don't you see if anyone over there will collaborate with you and
do the parts of the job that you don't want to do? that would be
far more effective than coming here and asking p.g. to accept half
of what they want, because you just don't wanna do the other half.
> Unfortunately, there is not a universal sense within the PG community
> as to what does or does not represent a positive contribution, which
> in turn leads to that unhappy state of affairs to which Bowerbird
> is only too aptly demonstrating today.
what is this "unhappy state of affairs" to which you make reference?
i'm unhappy because you left out the italics on a book you digitized,
and p.g. accepted it anyway, probably because they didn't notice it,
probably because they didn't think anyone would do something so
stupid as to put the italics in the .html file and not in the .txt file...
> Again I ask consideration that PG seriously consider allowing
> volunteers to be able to submit books using only ONE file format
you _can_ submit _one_ file format. they'll accept a .txt file alone.
no need for the .html file, or for any other format, for that matter.
> if they choose to do so, not requiring multiple file formats since
> that leads to that unhappy state of affairs that Bowerbird is today
> only too well demonstrating.
not only are you spouting nonsense about "unhappy state of affairs",
you're _repeating_ it, and in the very next paragraph no less! weird!
> Better yet, pick YOUR OWN book to transcribe and contribute to PG,
> rather than abusing ME of MY efforts on MY choice of books!
you can repeat that "abuse" line all you want, jim, but as long as
your book is missing those italics, you are the one in the wrong.
but hey, no problem, i'm gonna fix your work -- correct your flaws --
and submit a _corrected_ version of your .txt file, with all the italics...
but don't expect me to fix _all_ of your books!
-bowerbird
